Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Control Trio (PAB-120) - PAB570915

P.A.B. No. 120
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

15 September 1957


Now thinkingness in general should not be suspected of being under anybody’s control, much less the auditor’s, but it is probably more under the auditor’s control than it is under the preclear’s control. When I say to you “Do you think that thinkingness is under control?” you should be aware of the fact that it is less under the preclear’s control at any time than under the auditor’s control. That’s one the boys don’t get always. They think, “Well, can I get the preclear’s thinkingness under control?” Well, you can do it better than the preclear, but that is horribly bad, and when you get this clear you will see that you have to get the body under control and get attention under control before you aim at thinkingness.

Therefore, a condition to running Trio is this: Is the person of the preclear under control, is the attention of the preclear under control — those are two conditions necessary to run Trio. Now to assume the power of choice is also under the preclear’s control — much less thinkingness — is, of course, pretty grim. It moves Trio outrageously high. So you could say, then, that there are two versions of Trio, and I have been fishing around for one of them; I’ve been doing some work on this for the last several weeks and I finally got this thing taped — I do mean taped.

All right. Trio would just be Trio just the way it is. But there is an undercut in Trio; Trio could be a directive process, and it would be prefaced by “Get the idea of having that clock,” “Get the idea of having that picture” (indicating picture on wall), “Get the idea of having that sofa,” “Get the idea of having that chair,” “Get the idea of having that table” — do you see this? Now that is highly directive, isn’t it? Now that would keep thinkingness under control in the kind of a case who was having a rough time with it.

All right. Now let’s take the second version. “Get the idea that it would be all right for that clock to remain as it is.” “Get the idea that it would be all right for that wall to remain as it is.” Got that? Just an indicating process.

All right. Now here comes the clincher! Instead of dispense with, or not-know, we run into actually a brand-new process. Its rationale is much higher; it’s “Get the idea of making that clock disappear.” “Get the idea of making that chair disappear.” “Get the idea of making that ceiling disappear,” etc. Small objects are much easier for the preclear to make disappear than large ones, but you haven’t told him to make it disappear, have you? You have told him to get the idea of making it disappear. They usually interpret you literally and try like mad to make it disappear, and it usually does for a short time.

Now this process is restimulative, too. Anyway, we’ve got a point, and that is simply this: that this as a process all by itself is probably one of the killer processes of all time. I have solved this enigma: Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? And we ask this question and we ask this accompanying question: Why does a preclear get sick when you ask him to conceive a static? Now obviously we’d have to get somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside. What keeps a preclear from conceiving a static? It’s because he associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.” Don’t you see? “I’ve lost something if there’s nothing there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.” Conceiving a static is therefore painful. Well, the truth of the matter is, whenever he lost anything, something disappeared. All right.

The funny part of it is that he never noticed that he didn’t lose totally every time. He still had other objects. He lost his tie-pin — well, heavens, he’s still got his tie. He’s still got the floor, the room, this universe, space, but he never realizes this in these instances, and so that’s why we’ve been running this process here on “Recall a moment of loss,” just to see if we couldn’t accustom someone to conceiving a static very directly on loss, and whether or not the individual would exteriorize just as such, on the process.

Now that was a test that was made. The test process, “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched in with Havingness, then, has been run with the expected result that we would get this fellow concentrated on exteriorization and a little more able to conceive an exteriorization, certainly. Now final figures from this are probably not available from testing yet; they aren’t, but regardless of that, here is the rationale. An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates a static with loss, if loss is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

Now how do we do this? We have to go back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from him. It has become an automaticity and we find that the universe has an automaticity known as time, and time itself is a consecutive series of losses. All right. So we have to cure this fellow of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he’s so afraid of losing it that he parks himself on the track, and this is “stuck on the track” phenomena. All right. The process which is aimed at this, the experimental process “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched in with Havingness (Trio now handles it on this — ”Control Trio” it had better be called, and its third command is “Get the idea of making that (object) disappear”) — well, this gets him to take over the automaticity of all the losses which he has experienced unwillingly, you see that. It’s the universe that’s been taking the things away, and an individual, then, just by spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or are disappearing, of course then does take over this automaticity of losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after a while and he should come out of the woods on it.

Now all of these invisible masses that preclears have around them are actually simply symptoms of mass - loss, mass- loss. Now when an individual has no visio, has never seen anything, couldn’t see anything, the only thing he’s looking at is a stuck loss. Got the idea? He’s looking at the nothingness of something that was there. All right, you take over that automaticity with this third command on Control Trio. Therefore, you have a highly directional, a highly workable set of processes, and each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go on to the next part, and I would say you’d probably run it something on the order of, oh, certainly not a hundred commands each — you’d try to stay in that order of magnitude, and you could just run it round and round. It’s “get the idea of.”

Well, what would be necessary before you got to that process? It would be necessary to get an individual’s body under control, which takes the early steps of CCH. And then put his attention under control; a great many processes can do this. Chief amongst them has always been locational processing, and if you were to just run the ordinary locational processes, you would eventually get his attention under control.

The auditor taking control of somebody’s attention actually puts the preclear into more control of attention than the preclear ordinarily is, which is one of the freak things. People look at this and they say, “Well, we must be running the fellow out the bottom,” and we wouldn’t be running the fellow out the bottom.

Well, we leave Trio in its time-honored style and so on just as it has always been, but we do have this low-cut Trio and it’s rather a killer. You take somebody with glasses, his eyesight will do more tricks in less time on this third process of Control Trio. Things will go black — well, why do things go black? Well, blackness makes things disappear, doesn’t it, and you take over the automaticity of using blackness to make things disappear. Night grabs, the way of the universe, once in every 24 hours on earth here. This is the one we’ve been looking for to turn on visio.

Now if you wanted to turn on sonic with this you’d have to go down to a noisy part of town and just run Trio on sound, but you wouldn’t dare do this — run Control Trio on sound — you would not dare do this, of course, if the preclear did not already have Trio on objects flat. Obviously, visio would turn on before sonic.

There are many things that you could do with this. People who have anaesthetized areas in their body — like they have no chest, no sensation in their chest, etc. — do weird things with this process, this Control Trio. Got it? I wanted to tell you particularly about this particular process because it is a specific, and it will be found to be very useful to you. We had to find out if one version of this would run without killing a preclear, and that’s “Recall a moment of loss.” Actually, “Recall a moment of loss” should act as a havingness process, because it as-ises all of the loss points on the track, and it should be a havingness process all by itself, but we didn’t want to be so bold as to run it with no Havingness.

(Until I find out differently, this Control Trio and “Recall a moment of loss” are making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes.)